Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: HavocTM on June 08, 2004, 09:57:37 AM
-
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I am curious in terms of pure kills (not ratio), what aircraft has shot down the most enemy planes by number?
I suspect it will be a WW2 plane but I am interested to see what plane killed the largest number of enemies.
My best guess is the F6F, but that is just a shot in the dark.
Any ideas?
-
I'll place my bet on the 109. Saw constant action from before WWII till the end as 1st rate fighter.
Bozon
-
Not even close the 109s probrably got the most.........
-
I would also say 109. Fought in the spanish civil war, poland, low countries, BoF, BoB, western front, eastern front, the med. and N.Africa. And i have probably missed some out.
-
F4U-4 is deadly - Shot down a few Japanese aircraft and none of them were shot down or damage by the Japanese before war ended.
F8F is probably alot deadliest fighter if they get to see WWII.
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
F8F is probably alot deadliest fighter if they get to see WWII.
There's still a chance they will?
-
lol hawker
-
In WWII I believe the F6F took 75% of all Navy kills...
-
Bf109. Numbers and duration of conflict win it both the deadliest and "most killed" awards.
No US, UK, JP or RU aircraft can compete in terms of sheer numbers.
For the aircraft of those nations to compete you need to switch to kill ratios.
-
109s shot down more than twice the number of aircraft than any other fighter. It's also one of the longest serving WWII fighters having fought in the Spanish civil war, WWII, and the Israeli-Arab wars of the 1950s. It is also probably the most shot down fighter. Kill ratio wise the 109 scores high, perhaps 4 to 1 or so, but other fighters like the very late-war allied ones probably have better k/d.
-
I doubt the 109's K/D is much above 1 for 1. Frankly, I'd guess it is below 1 for 1.
-
i dunno, probably so, beings in late ww2 they were gettin shot down left n right, but you also had the top aces who shot down many many many planes for just 1 man, i mean of course they were shot down or killed to, but not nearly as many as they brought down.
I think itd be near impossible to get any exact numbers with all the service 109s saw. Definetly the plane that killed and was killed the most though.
-
For sure the 109 but it was also the most shot down fighter.
On April 9 1945 the LW only had 1300 servicable se fighters of which most likely 2/3 were 109s. There was maybe 11-1200 109s servicable/unservicable 'on the books' left out of the 33K or so manufactured. Even with the increase in production, the 1300 was ~200 less than in Jan. 1945.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
109s shot down more than twice the number of aircraft than any other fighter. It's also one of the longest serving WWII fighters having fought in the Spanish civil war, WWII, and the Israeli-Arab wars of the 1950s. It is also probably the most shot down fighter. Kill ratio wise the 109 scores high, perhaps 4 to 1 or so, but other fighters like the very late-war allied ones probably have better k/d.
During the early portion of the Hellcat's deployment, it's kill ratio was 37 to 1. By the end of the war it was down to 19 to 1. The highest KtD in the war. The reason for the radical drop was owing to it's heavy employment as a jabo, and the subsequent losses associated in that role.
F6F.... there is no substitute.
-
The highest KtD in the war
What was the Finish Brewster's K/d.
Slappin' down betties and zeke's isnt that impressive to me...
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
During the early portion of the Hellcat's deployment, it's kill ratio was 37 to 1. By the end of the war it was down to 19 to 1. The highest KtD in the war. The reason for the radical drop was owing to it's heavy employment as a jabo, and the subsequent losses associated in that role.
F6F.... there is no substitute.
A-hem, about the K/D...
"The Finns achieved a kill/loss ratio of 32:1 in the Brewsters during over three years of fighting (June 25th 1941 - September 4th 1944) against the numerically superior Soviet Air Force. "
"The top scoring Brewster B-239 pilot was Hans Wind with 39 kills in B-239s. Wind scored 26 of his kills while flying B-239 designated BW-393 and Eino Luukkanen scored 7 more kills with the same plane. BW-393 is credited with 41 kills in total making it possibly the single aircraft with most air victories in the history of air warfare. "
-
Very interesting!
The Brewster Buffalo didn't seem like a very capable aircraft. Very slow and relatively limited armament...
But wow they really racked up some victories!
I had read somewhere that there weren't any Brewsters for training so the Finnish pilots had to just hop in and learn to fly it. Apparently many of the first shipment were lost in training accidents.
-
Hi HavocTM,
About Brewster:
http://www.danford.net/buff.htm
http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/brewster.html
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/BWtoFAF1.htm
Many FAF history articles
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/
-
The F6F kicked ass... in the PTO. IMHO, it is impossible to truly compare statistics between the Russian front, Western Europe front, and PTO. All three were very very different types of wars.
I mean, you can have some people argue that the Finns were the best pilots. I can make a case that the USN pilots of 1942 were the best at that time. I am sure others can say the same about most of the major air forces involved at some point during the war.
Look at the Buffalo. Things that allowed it to succeed with the Finns were outclassed by the Japanese in the Pacific. The F6F outclassed the Zeke in just about everything (except low speed maneuverability), but how would it have faired in a protracted war against the German 190s and 109s? The La7 was great, but how would it have done if it had to face the high altitude bombing campaign of the US?
Great for discussion, but you will never be able to pin down what was the best fighter of WW2. What criteria you think is important may not be important to the next person. Look at me, I am not a big afficianado of the ETO (though I do read about it). I prefer the PTO to the Luftwaffe/USAAF/RAF/VVS/etc. What I think makes a fighter great is not the same as what Batz does for instance (not picking on him, but he is identifiable as someone who prefers the LW).
All together though, it is a great discussion. And yes, the F6F is the best fighter produced during WW2 (sorry, couldn't resist saying that - whether I truly feel that way is another matter, its just my favorite).
-
Well I fly lw but if I had to pic a plane to fight in ww2 I wouldn't chose a 109 or 190, I'd fly an F6F.
I think its a fine aircraft.
USN pilots are and were some of the finest in the world....
However, I wouldn't go as far as Bodhi by saying
F6F.... there is no substitute.
Whatever successes a particular plane had it is most likely a result of pilot training and tactics.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Whatever successes a particular plane had it is most likely a result of pilot training and tactics.
That is something I completely agree with. All the performance in the world doesn't mean squat if it isn't used right.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I doubt the 109's K/D is much above 1 for 1. Frankly, I'd guess it is below 1 for 1.
Approximately 35,000 Bf109s were made during WWII. In the few war months of 1941 alone the Soviet air force lost 17,900 airplanes, most of them to the 109s. In 1942 the Soviets lost 12,100 airplanes, again mostly to the 109s. In 1943 the Soviets lost 22,500 airplanes. In 1944 they lost 24,800 airplanes. And even in 1945 they lost 11,000 airplanes.
In scale the Allied air offensive in the west was merely a sideshow to the war in the east. In fact every other military conflict in recorded history pales in comparison.
-
Originally posted by GScholz In scale the Allied air offensive in the west was merely a sideshow to the war in the east. In fact every other military conflict in recorded history pales in comparison.
1944 - All Combat Types
Total: West - Eastern Front- West/East
Sorties: 182,004 - 342,483 - 0.53
Losses: 9768 - 2406 - 4.06
Losses/Sortie: 0.0537 - 0.00703 - 7.66
4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.
from http://jg26.vze.com/
It also should be noted that ~70% of the LW was consentrated in the West.
-
Hi Karnak,
>I doubt the 109's K/D is much above 1 for 1. Frankly, I'd guess it is below 1 for 1.
We had a long thread about that recently :-)
Quoting myself:
"According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1."
That's rather crude because losses to ground defenses are included and no type breakdown is given. Still, it's better than nothing :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
It also should be noted that ~70% of the LW was consentrated in the West.
This is the only part of your post that has anything what so ever to do with what I posted ... and it is complete and utter nonsense.
In 1944 two thirds of the LW was in Luftflotte 4, 5, and 6 all on the Russian front. In June 1944 2,085 combat aircraft were on the East Front while only 850 aircraft were deployed in defence of the Reich, and of these only 135 were stationed in France and Belgium. Even the sortie numbers you posted show that the LW flew far greater numbers of sorties in the east than in the west.
-
Hes confused, I am sure he meant "day fighters" and closer to 80% were in the west according to Caldwell. And this was late '43 onward.
1. During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.
2. During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.
3. During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.
4. During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West.
5. During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one
-
GScholz,
How many of those Russian aircraft were destroyed on the ground? As I recall, the vast, vast majority were.
Maybe you count aircraft destroyed while parked on the ground as a kill, but I don't and I don't think the Germans did either.
HoHun,
How many of those were 109 kills? For example, I know that the Spitfire had a positive K/D ratio against the 109, and a negative K/D ratio against the 190.
Were 10,000+ 109s really lost to accidents and causes other than being shot down?
-
Batz, on 1 January 1943 the total strength of the Jagdgruppen in the west was 635 109s and 190s, stationed at airfields that stretched from Banak in Northern Norway to Brest-Guipavas on the Atlantic coast in Brittany.
In late-December 1943 all units operating in the defence of Germany were put under a new command called Luftflotte Reich, led by Generaloberst Hans-Jürgen Stumpff. On 20 February 1944 the total strength of Luftflotte Reich was 863 day-fighters including Zerstörers. This is less than half of the 1,675 109s and 190s in service at that time.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
GScholz,
How many of those Russian aircraft were destroyed on the ground? As I recall, the vast, vast majority were.
In the opening phases of operation Barbarossa, yes the vast majority were. From 1942 onwards, the majority was air combat over the battlefield.
Originally posted by Karnak
For example, I know that the Spitfire had a positive K/D ratio against the 109, and a negative K/D ratio against the 190.
How do you know that?
Originally posted by Karnak
Were 10,000+ 109s really lost to accidents and causes other than being shot down?
30-35% sound like a realistic number yes. 5% or so in take-off and landing accidents. Probably 10% in other accidents. 10% or so in write-offs from damage or fatigue. another 5-10% destroyed on the ground at factory or airfield. Sounds reasonable.
-
GS those are Caldwells numbers from his site, the one milo linked.
Karnak
How do you know the spit had a pos k/D over the 109?
The spit were secondary players through BoB.
In NA they were slaughtered, cross channel attacks were limited in scope.
So what source do you base this on?
For most of their service they faced 190 any way....
Here's spit killers
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html
Here's BoB experten
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/bob.html
Here's Kanaljäger experten
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/kanal.html
Not to mention the med.......
-
From what I read on that site it seems Mr. Caldwell is on a quest to prove that the "real" air war was fought in the west rather than over the battlefield where 15,000,000+ soldiers and 20,000,000+ civilians were killed. More people were killed on the Eastern Front than the total of all those that served on both sides on all other fronts in WWII including the Pacific.
-
your point?
-
Scroll up.
-
Originally posted by Batz
How do you know the spit had a pos k/D over the 109?
I knew I was going to get bit by that after I'd left. I was being sloppy. I should have said that it has been reported to me that the Spit was positive vs the 109 and negative vs the 190. Sometime ago on this board, IIRC.
I was typing fast as I had to go and that was the shortest phrase that came out.
Factually I don't know and that was the wrong word to use. Mea culpa.
-
I dunno if this helps but just watched a show on the wings channel about deadliest aircraft spanning 40 years
winner was the p47 with the most kills
but, that was also including ground attack
-
In Europe scene I also think it was the P-47, mainly because they were the first long-range fighters and were flown in great numbers
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I doubt the 109's K/D is much above 1 for 1. Frankly, I'd guess it is below 1 for 1.
Hmm, and how would be that possilbe ? Certainly most of us would agree those hated Bf 109 shot down by far the most planes in WW2 - lists I have show some 60 000 kills done by the LW fighter Experten, it`s about right to assume 40-50 000 of those were made in Bf 109s. Already we have a (very) positive K/D ratio, but let`s go on, the strenght report lists I have for German s-e fighters also show something like only about 8000-10 000 (recalling from memo) German fighters being lost to 'enemy-action', which would also include Flak etc. This refers to start of 1942 to the end of 1944, in other words, fairly complete.
As for the earlier years, evidence points to even the mighty Spit being spanked badly in the BoB by 109s in k/d ratios.. results over France, Dunkirk and NA wasn`t any better in those early years, so I wonder, if one of the best allied fighters at that time had such a hard time, how could the other fare ? Galland and Moelders already made 100 kills by about the end 1941 IIRC - most allied pilots couldn`t even score one-third of thatin the whole war. Though reasons for this are often mentioned for this, many of such points having truth in them, such figures certainly make me think of a rather positive kill ratio for the Bf 109 pilots. ;)
One shouldn`t even mention the early days of Barbarossa - `twas basically a mass murder in the skies and 109s took there share of it..
And frankly, I can hardly imagine any of the major ww2 fighters would have negative k/d ratios. Hardly could they have such, mostly they met bombers, transports, ie. stuff that they were supposed to shot down by defintion..
Even though definitive k/d ratios are hard to confirm. While the amount of planes lost in combat is known, the amount of real kills and not just overclaiming is uncertain and next to impossible the discover for the whole war period..
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I knew I was going to get bit by that after I'd left. I was being sloppy. I should have said that it has been reported to me that the Spit was positive vs the 109 and negative vs the 190. Sometime ago on this board, IIRC.
I was typing fast as I had to go and that was the shortest phrase that came out.
Factually I don't know and that was the wrong word to use. Mea culpa.
AH ok, I have no idea myself but it just doesnt seem correct looking at various theaters.
-
What kind of feather did the LW use to spank the Spit Barbi?:rolleyes:
JULY 1940-OCTOBER 1940 THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN.
The Battle of France was a wild melee, Allied Units continually falling back and the advancing Germans meant that both sides could be excused for poor paperwork.
After the collapse of France , the Luftwaffe turned to England and afetr some sparring over Convoys, on 10 July began what is known as The Battle of Britain.
Through out the Battle, which continued to 31 October 1940, the Luftwaffe Propaganda machine claimed to have destroyed over 3000 RAF aircraft, clearly exceeding the size of the RAF at the time. OKL officially credited its Pilots with the destruction of about 1955 Spitfires & Hurricanes (I have deducted Defiants, Blenheims and other aircraft) which compares unfavourably with the RAF losses of either 932 ("The Narrow Margin" by Wood & Dempster) or 755 Spitfires & Hurricanes (Fighter Command Losses & Casualties by Frank) Included in the RAF losses are those which were shot down by Bombers, and not included in the OKL figures but not those which "crash landed at an airfield" and were repaired. It is hard to pick out those shot down by the Bombers as many final moments are not clear and they are only listed as shot down.
In this period, the reputation of many Luftwaffe experten were built upon, but it appears that their tallies must be inflated. Marseille, The Star of Africa, was awarded his first kill on 8 September for a Spitfire, on the same day 4 other Spitfires were claimed though the RAF only lost 1, was Marseille mistaken and he destroyed a Hurricane, OKL awarded 8 Hurricane kills but Franks details only 4 as being shot down!! Marseille went on to claim 6 other victories over the Channel, none of which are detailed in any official records but go to make up his tally of 158 "kills".
Other days with "interesting" results
Date OKL Awards Narrow Margin/Franks
10 July 27 5/1
11 July 2 4/7
29 July 18 3/3
8 August 38 19/15
11 August 55 32/26
15 August 87 34/30
18 August 86 27/29
31 August 97 37/39
6 September 58 23/20
7 September 72 28/23
15 September 69 26/27
27 September 79 28/24
30 September 54 20/14
By the end of the Battle RAF losses were only 47.67% of OKL awards according to The Narrow Margin or 38.62% according to Franks. (Some of this difference are the Defiants, Blenheims etc. which I didn't tally in the Franks figures.)
Added to these figures are the accuracy of aircraft types (a problem throughout the war to all sides) OKL awarded 712 Hurricane kills and 1243 Spitfire kills , Franks tallies to 470 Hurricanes and only 285 Spitfires. This would probably be attributed to the "desire" to shoot down the better aircraft. Claims were also awarded for some odd types, a continual reference to Hawks or Hawk-75's, a Radial engined aircraft tottaly different to any RAF fighter, some Morane's, a Bloch MB 151, and a Bregeut Bre693(more possible as this was close to the fall of France)
Now we all know that Barbi can not tell the truth even if his life depended on it.:aok
-
Now what's he droning on about?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Now what's he droning on about?
Probably he just tries to start some flaming again, so he won`t be so bored.
Anyway, as per "Spitfire Special" by Ted Hooton, the 'exchange rate' between 1st July and end of September 1940 was the following, shot down in combat by the opposing fighter:
219 Spitfires lost for 180 Bf 109s
272 Hurricanes lost for 153 Bf 109s.
Which gives a total 491 Spits+Hurris lost for 333 Bf 109s in fighter combat during BoB, giving the Bf 109s a 1.47 positive kill ratio - at least as per Hooton`s research.
-
the mighty Spit being spanked badly in the BoB by 109s
Not droning or starting a flame unlike you with your 'spanked' comment Barbi. If your ratio of 1.2:1 for the 109 over the Spit is being spanked, you have a very wild and vivid imagination.:aok
Being 'spanked' would be the F6F's or the B239's k/d ratio.
Since you like that site so much Barbi, lets look at the stats for Sept/Oct '40.
Spitfire: 195 destroyed, 76 damaged
Bf 109: 326 destroyed, 96 damaged
Would seem the 109 was the one that had the tough time.:)
-
One just wonders why have to the Hurri losses suddenly disappear ? ;)
Single-engined fighter losses Sept/Oct 1940 as per The Battle of Britain" by Peter G. Cooksley :
RAF
Hurricane : 294 destroyed, 77 damaged
Spitfire 195 destroyed, 76 damaged
Total : 489 destroyed, 153 damaged,
LW
Bf 109: 326 destroyed, 96 damaged
1.5 (1.6 in damaged) kill ratio in favour of the Bf 109.
It appears in Sept/October the exchange rate was even worser for the RAF than for the whole battle`s avarage.
-
Because of the fluid nature of aerial combat statistics can be misleading.
During the early stages of the Battle of Britain the main targets of both Hurricane and Spitfire pilots were Luftwaffe bombers. Luftwaffe fighters flying over southern England were cut loose in search-and-destroy missions. During that phase, I suspect RAF fighters losses were greater than the Luftwaffe's.
After Hitler switched the main targets of Luftwaffe attacks from RAF airfields to London and other cities, Luftwaffe fighters, suffering from the lack of drop tanks, found it increasingly difficult to come to grips with RAF fighters. With less interference from the 109s, RAF fighter losses began to drop.
In the final stages of battle Goering, angry over rising bomber losses, ordered the 109s to cease their search-and-destroy tactics and confine them to close escort of the bombers. With their freedom of action severely curtailed, 109 losses began to rise.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by HavocTM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I am curious in terms of pure kills (not ratio), what aircraft has shot down the most enemy planes by number?
I suspect it will be a WW2 plane but I am interested to see what plane killed the largest number of enemies.
My best guess is the F6F, but that is just a shot in the dark.
Any ideas?
is that any plane incluiding bombers?
then probably a german type model. but then again the p51's put a majior hurting on the german airforce when introduced. also when the marines got the f4u in the pacific they put the hurting to the japs so i guess i will have to do a little search online to answer this question:confused:
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
One just wonders why have to the Hurri losses suddenly disappear ? ;)
Do you have troubles reading or have a faulty memory Barbi? You did not say the Hurricanes were 'spanked' by the 109s, only that the Spitfire was, in your troll post.
Nice attempt in trying to deflect away from your laughable comment that the Spitfire was 'spanked' by the 109.
But since you want to include other a/c, the LW lost 882 destroyed, 331 damaged compared to the RAF loss of 501 destroyed, 157 damaged for Sept/Oct 1940.
Using your definition of 'spanked' Barbi, the LW was spanked by the RAF.:aok
-
I knew I was going to get bit by that after I'd left. I was being sloppy. I should have said that it has been reported to me that the Spit was positive vs the 109 and negative vs the 190. Sometime ago on this board, IIRC.
Karnak,
Although it is probably impossible to prove the actual kill ratio, your statement is not all that far fetched. The KanalGeschwaders were given priority for 190 allocation.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/OOB.htm
Chances are if you were an RAF fighter pilot over Europe, from 42 til the end of the war, the LW fighter you most likely would encounter was an FW-190. A surprisingly small number of Luftwaffe Dayfighters were able to maintain Air Superiority over a much larger allied force in the west until early '44.
Crumpp
-
You guys can argue that the Spitfire was the best, or the F6F was the best or even stretch reality a bit and even claim the LW planes were the best but we all know the truth.
Sure, you can live in denial by claiming those other planes are the best plane but you're only doing yourself harm by denying reality.
We all know that the P-38 was the #1 top dog and I think it's about time you guys face this bitter truth and stop living in that fantasy land you've built for yourselves.
Once you face reality, you will live with an inner peace like no other. So remember...P-38 is the King, everything else is just second rate.
ack-ack
-
but I am curious in terms of pure kills (not ratio), what aircraft has shot down the most enemy planes by number?
Back on topic: 109, as many have metioned.